Jump to content

Glasgow 2014


Recommended Posts

We're still a year away and already these games are looking likely to beat Manchester as probibly the best.

I do hope this new formula the Glasgow event is pioneering ( along with GC) encourages the other member countries to give hosting a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're still a year away and already these games are looking likely to beat Manchester as probibly the best.

I do hope this new formula the Glasgow event is pioneering ( along with GC) encourages the other member countries to give hosting a go.

I'm interested - what did Melbourne do wrong? (technically, it was "the best" CWG as it was labelled that at the Closing - an honour not bestowed upon Delhi)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested - what did Melbourne do wrong? (technically, it was "the best" CWG as it was labelled that at the Closing - an honour not bestowed upon Delhi)

Melbourne was my favourite Commonwealth Games.

However, I think where Manchester would win in alot of peoples eyes, is that it is what a Commonwealth Games *should* be. I guess a lot of people saw that Melbourne was just too big, it was almost not a Commonwealth Games, but an almost Olympics.

So I suppose Manchester is seen as *perfection* in that it had the perfect mix.

I don't think anyone could doubt the technical brilliance of Melbourne, or the general vibe to be honest , it was hosted by an amazing city which is sports mad. I guess it's that if you were looking at previous hosts to produce a template to give to future hosts - maybe Manchester is what you would go towards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is not a city putting on a large scale games, it is when other cities try to match or better them and fail miserably aka Delhi 2010.

Melbourne 2006 was large because they could, they have excellent sporting facilities, most were already up and running, good infrastructure, hotels, and sporting reputation. So it worked as a big and successful games. Manchester held a games that was realistic to that city as will Glasgow next year.

It should never be about bettering or outdoing the previous host but holding a successful, safe and memorable games experience for athletes and spectators alike.


And also the Melbourne Games were held before the global financial crisis kicked in

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just so we're clear - my question of Alex isn't by any means a kind of Trans Tasman attack - it was just a genuine question. I've noticed that sentiment toward Melbourne 2006 on here before and elsewhere on the internet. Particularly, I noticed it in the Gold Coast's 2018 bid, where the general tenor was about returning to the golden days of 1982 - before the likes of Melbourne and KL.

I agree, Manchester 2002 was a wonderful Games. But I'm not sure what else Melbourne could have done? As Rols said - it wanted to give the Commonwealth Games the best reception, so naturally the MCG was the venue. The MCG is a big deal. Until Sydney 2000, it was the largest stadium the Olympic Games had ever called home. People see these huge venues in a majestic precinct and seem to dwell on this idea that the CWG was not worthy of such pageantry, but thats just Melbourne. It is a city built for major events.

I'd argue Melbourne 2006 could be compared to Victoria 1994 - it was another lightweight Games on a different scale. Truth is Melbourne walked in and staged 2006 with little effort - basically every venue was in place, and the most substantial upgrades were probably due to happen anyway (particularly the MCG). It is here that I'd go and say that 1998, 2002, 2010 and 2018 were/are far more burdensome on their host cities. Melbourne threw an amazing, flawless, happy Games. The city remembers them well, but is hardly defined by the experience like many previous host cities are.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I living in Melbourne in 2006 and I think Melbourne did Australia proud and gave the Commonwealth Games a triumphant piece de resistance to be proud of. I'm well aware of the flaws of the Commonwealth Games, and have some issue with the lingering meaning that underpins them, but I think they are a fantastic event that does unite the extreme haves and haves not of the globe. I can't wait for Glasgow. I'm infinitely more excited about it than Sochi.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring Rols' utterly crude comments,

I gotta feeling Melbourne deliberatly upsized the CWGs just to throw one back at Sydney. Yes Melbourne has the best facilities for sport in all of Australasia...but where it may have had a negative effect was New Delhi suddenly realized it needed to match Melbourne. Simply impossible to build with 3rd world infrastructure in such a short space of time. Melbourne's facilities had been developed on for 100 years.

This is where Glasgow has sort of pressed the re-set button, with Gold Coast following on.

An easier format to follow and allows second tier cities to give it a go, Adelaide, Halifax, Leeds, Christchurch, Port Elizabeth * etc...

*correction

Edited by Alexjc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats where I'd have to disagree- with the assertion that Melbourne was upsizing because of Sydney 2000. I guess that comparison was inevitable due to it being six years after the 2000 Olympics - but I cannot think of any other way Melbourne could have staged 2006. If it had used any other option to give it the appearance of 'downsizing' to a more standard CWG scale event - it would have probably been unfeasible. Those major, Olympic scale venues in Melbourne are the only venues the city could use. The concentration around the CBD and Olympic Park - and the compact Games plan, is what drew the Olympic comparisons. The 2006 Games seemed like a pseudo Olympics because it was just that - 2006 was a partial realisation of the 1996 bid plan, because it was the best and most feasable template for the city to use.

There are two major stadiums in the city centre along the transit corridors - Docklands and the MCG. If Docklands had been built with T&F in mind - it may have been an interesting alternative to the MCG as a main stadium, and with a capacity of some 55,000 would have been suitable. However, the MCG was the only option for a IAAF standard track, and coupled with the need for redevelopment. This is where Sydney 2000 comes into play, the MCG finally had a peer at Homebush that it now had to compete with in attracting events, so it was natural that the government rebuilt it. But that would have gone ahead, with or without the 2006 Games.

Anyway - in summary, Melbourne probably did settle for the Commonwealth Games like Manchester did. Sydney blocked Melbourne's designs on a 2004 Olympic bid - so it set its sights on 2006, the next possible CWG (as Perth got the rights to bid for 2002, even though it didn't go ahead) Melbourne did this so it could have something to celebrate in its renaissance - it really wasn't about throwing anything back at Sydney - at the end of the day Sydney hosted the golden egg and nobody in Melbourne would have denied that. The Melbourne Games were great fun, real buzz and energy that rekindled that magic in Sydney six years earlier. I thought it was interesting that many of the volunteers and tourists had also been at Sydney 2000 - this is what will make Glasgow a huge success - it will be the CWG counterpart to an earlier Olympics like Melbourne was.


Just remembered talking to an older English couple at one of the Melbourne live sites during 2006, and they had been at Sydney 2000, and loved it so much that they opted to come to Melbourne 2006 Games over visiting Athens in 2004.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My angle here is the effect on New Delhi...After 2006 they must have though "shivers, how are we going to beat this?"

I will admit that 2002 seemed right, and that 2006 felt like an OLYMPICS. So vast that you hang in your own corner and focus on what you are good at, like NZs London campaign. The Commies are suppose to be a more carnival event. Gold Coast will prove that.

Glasgow will still be the benchmark for a whole new era. Prehaps 2010 was the final deathnell to the CWG format up until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My angle here is the effect on New Delhi...After 2006 they must have though "shivers, how are we going to beat this?"

I will admit that 2002 seemed right, and that 2006 felt like an OLYMPICS. So vast that you hang in your own corner and focus on what you are good at, like NZs London campaign. The Commies are suppose to be a more carnival event. Gold Coast will prove that.

Glasgow will still be the benchmark for a whole new era. Prehaps 2010 was the final deathnell to the CWG format up until then.

Quite possibly - although I can see any future London Games have a similar impact to Melbourne- especially if they use QE2 Olympic Park, even if reconfigured.

I think the problem might be more that it is not so much that there is anything wrong with how Melbourne executed the delivery of the Games - it was near perfect - but more Melbourne itself. Perhaps because of the very fact that those Games came and went without much of an impact on the host city, is perhaps why they could be considered less of as stand out example for others to follow.

And yes, a carnival 2018 will be. Can't say any sensible Sydneysider or Melburnian is exactly pining for that one to come around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring Rols' utterly crude comments,

I gotta feeling Melbourne deliberatly upsized the CWGs just to throw one back at Sydney. Yes Melbourne has the best facilities for sport in all of Australasia...but where it may have had a negative effect was New Delhi suddenly realized it needed to match Melbourne. Simply impossible to build with 3rd world infrastructure in such a short space of time. Melbourne's facilities had been developed on for 100 years.

This is where Glasgow has sort of pressed the re-set button, with Gold Coast following on.

An easier format to follow and allows second tier cities to give it a go, Adelaide, Halifax, Leeds, Christchurch, Durban etc...

Durban is second tier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, which is why I hope that the Centenary is the only CWG for which London is even considered as a host.

!

I agree. I think 2022 could be good - being 10 years later and sooner, but the centenary in 2030 would be even better. By the the Olympics would be 18 years prior, and the site might need some minor refurbishments that could be part of the. 2030 preparations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...